Atom-Ecology

  • say T2 is maybe 275 degree C, and T1 is 220 degree C or whatever. No idea, we must wait for proper data to say anything. What I don't understand is that the curve seam to never go under

    200 degrees.

  • That's because the PID thermostat had been set to 200C. Or maybe 230- I don't have the figures to hand.


    This would clarify things a bit for me. But the label on the figure says that the fueled reactor has "ZERO power input". This conflicts with your information doesn't it? Or am I completely misunderstanding what input power is in your system?


    Edit: Wait. Aha!! I get it! So for the last half of the figure the fueled reactor is unpowered but the control reactor is externally heated. This means that lenr heating is much more prominent than it appears from the figure and is actually pretty much fully in play right down to at least 270 degrees C or so. If the control reactor had been left to cool naturally you might would have had something like this ...


      


    This would be much more what Jed Rothwell expected to see for heat after death. And one reason Russ George`s plot is not showing the threshold effects I expected is because the entirety of the plot is way above the activation range.

  • I must confess that I have not been following your discussion with Bruce so I'll just say 'Yes'. The heating coil is re-energised when the PID's dedicated thermocouple hits the set value- or maybe a very small amount above it to allow for system hysteresis.

  • I must confess that I have not been following your discussion with Bruce so I'll just say 'Yes'. The heating coil is re-energised when the PID's dedicated thermocouple hits the set value- or maybe a very small amount above it to allow for system hysteresis.


    In stefan's usage, T1 is laboratory ambient temperature and T2 is the temperature above which lenr heating starts to kick in

  • I'll answer for Russ on this, since he probably won't post any more. Right now we have something pretty amazing going on, but we don't yet know how useful it might be. Signs are that it will be very useful, but we need to do a lot more work to make it so. We are exploring strange territory, working with relatively novel materials, there is no map, and we are not even sure how far the territory extends. So, it would be premature to discuss commercialisation as we are still experimenting and debugging our systems - not that they are very buggy, but I believe (like many) in the value of continued incremental improvements. Right now I'm putting together a 42V 137A power bus to feed all 8 reactors with exactly the same heater power- it will only be running at a small fraction of its capacity, but does represent another variable removed and another calibration chore simplified.


    Thanks for your interest, I can only assure you that we have good intentions and no fear of hard work or spending our cash on what we perceive to be important work.

  • I'll answer for Russ on this, since he probably won't post any more. Right now we have something pretty amazing going on, but we don't yet know how useful it might be. Signs are that it will be very useful, but we need to do a lot more work to make it so. We are exploring strange territory, working with relatively novel materials, there is no map, and we are not even sure how far the territory extends. So, it would be premature to discuss commercialisation as we are still experimenting and debugging our systems - not that they are very buggy, but I believe (like many) in the value of continued incremental improvements. Right now I'm putting together a 42V 137A power bus to feed all 8 reactors with exactly the same heater power- it will only be running at a small fraction of its capacity, but does represent another variable removed and another calibration chore simplified.


    Thanks for your interest, I can only assure you that we have good intentions and no fear of hard work or spending our cash on what we perceive to be important work.

    Hi Alan,


    Finally, you have a wonderful, unexpected vacation..:)

    However, in the current excitement, you probably have a same communication mode as Rossi ..:D:D

    If you really ready to share maybe with more teams around Lenrforum, you should do more work, quickly.

    I think it should be better for your health/heart , my friend ..8)8)

    From our side we continue to try the older way as NiH..so we hope also to become excited soon as you .:)


    DF

  • That would be a mistake. I have just been looking at some very strange data, with suggests there is a 15 second 'bursty heat' cycle, and at times another 5 second cycle. Puzzles the hell out of me.


    Do the long bursty episodes come after long periods of quiescence and the short bursty episodes com after relatively shorter quiescent periods? This would be a prediction of having a slow variable in the system.

  • Do the long bursty episodes come after long periods of quiescence and the short bursty episodes com after relatively shorter quiescent periods?


    I cant really give even an anecdotal answer to that - we have the data but have yet to check that out in ways that would answer your question.



    Just curious, if you have time: how/why did you pick those particular rather odd parameters?


    Well, the parameters are in part decided by the availability of pedigree high-output super smooth PSU's made for data farms at knock-down prices. About $10/kW is typical for 'mint and boxed' if you know where to look. But it goes back further than that, when supplying reactors via 'lookingforheat' I was (a) concerned about people electrocuting themselves, and (b) wishing to avoid the arguments about power measurement we so often see about AC systems, (c) suspecting that AC magnetic fields (ex the solenoid heater coil) might be disruptive. So I designed systems that run on relatively low-voltage DC - and they work very well, so not in a rush to change things.

  • This means that the controler kicks in at 200 or 230 which can be above both T1 and T2

    If I've understood correctly... When switched off BOTH fueled and non-fueled reactors should cool assymtoticly towards room temperature. But the fueled reactor actually cools more slowly or starts cooling after a delay (this being the HOD effect).


    Then when they get down to 200/250 the pir kicks in and maintains 200/250 until the next heating cycle to 500+.


    What's confusing is that the fueled reactor appears to cool assymtoticly towards about 250 rather than assymtoticaly towards room temperature. The PIR set temperature shouldn't affect the "target" temperature like that as it's off until 250 is reached.


    If the PIR is turned off so it doesn't maintain 200/250 how long does the fueled reactor remain at 250 before continuing on down towards room temperature?

  • Right now I'm putting together a 42V 137A power bus to feed all 8 reactors with exactly the same heater power- it will only be running at a small fraction of its capacity, but does represent another variable removed and another calibration chore simplified.

    I don't see how this simplifies calibration. I assume that you would be running all 8 reactors with heaters in parallel to give each heater coil about 17A at 42V max (around 700W).


    But the power is the same only if the coil resistance is the same. The heater coil resistance changes significantly at high temperature, so you would still need to measure each current separately. And if you need to monitor them separately, how is one big supply any better than a bunch of separate smaller supplies?

  • But the power is the same only if the coil resistance is the same. The heater coil resistance changes significantly at high temperature, so you would still need to measure each current separately. And if you need to monitor them separately, how is one big supply any better than a bunch of separate smaller supplies?


    This is schoolboy science and we left school before the Vietnam war. Let me explain. We measure and compare the performance of the reactors continuously over long calibration periods using various methods, at the moment the energy they use to keep at at (for example) 300C without LENR heat is 120W and the criterion we set ourselves is that they should all be within 1% of this figure. The coil resistances are exactly the same, they are made and measured very precisely. The coil resistance does not change significantly with temperature in our case, look up temperature/resistance curves for Kanthal. Then you will understand why we use Kanthal. We only monitor current separately for each reactor, and believe me, it is better to keep an eye on one PSU than 6 or 8. Uniformity is important when making comparisons

  • Kanthal is much better than nichrome, but depending on the type of Kanthal, its resistance can still change by up to 3% from cold to 300C. See this datasheet:


    https://www.kanthal.com/global…d-strip/S-KA026-B-ENG.pdf


    Assuming you use the same type of heater wire for all reactors, you could include the adjustment from these tables and keep all the readings within 1%. Before I had not heard what type of heater wire you were using. In some electronics high temperature tests, I uncovered some errors because the engineers assumed that the cold and hot resistance of nichrome wires was the same, but the delta was actually quite significant.

  • I'll answer for Russ on this, since he probably won't post any more. Right now we have something pretty amazing going on, but we don't yet know how useful it might be. Signs are that it will be very useful, but we need to do a lot more work to make it so. We are exploring strange territory, working with relatively novel materials, there is no map, and we are not even sure how far the territory extends. So, it would be premature to discuss commercialisation as we are still experimenting and debugging our systems - not that they are very buggy, but I believe (like many) in the value of continued incremental improvements. Right now I'm putting together a 42V 137A power bus to feed all 8 reactors with exactly the same heater power- it will only be running at a small fraction of its capacity, but does represent another variable removed and another calibration chore simplified.


    Thanks for your interest, I can only assure you that we have good intentions and no fear of hard work or spending our cash on what we perceive to be important work.

    What does Russ George' talking about making the thing available in months not years, mean to you? Does that imply commercialization, as I doubt just selling the recipe would be of any benefit to those in need?


    Thank you for your effort and perseverance despite no funding or external help. You guys rock!

  • Many LENR experiments similar to those that Russ et al are doing have shown that a solid reactor such as what Russ is developing might not be amiable to commercialization. The most famous long term LENR test, the Doral test showed that the solid state reactor will eventually crumble and fail.


    This is why Rossi has developed a plasma based reactor.


    If past is prolog, Russ will spend the next 10 years in trying to get his solid state reactor to produce kilowatts of heat and still will fail when the reactor falls apart in long term usage. He should vaporize his fuel and excite it with RF as is done in the QX reactor. The Qx reactor is replaceable after 1 years usage whereupon it is recycled. Russ might use the same one time use strategy in any product development.


    Russ should take his reactor(s) working the longest and examine it for structural damage that might indicate the danger of long term failure,


    "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

  • Good point,


    I think that the cooling dependence as a function on temperature has a knee. For small temperatures convection carries the heat away in a k(T-T1) fashion but at higher temperatures radiation may result and that's T^4 This means that you can draw a

    figure with the heating curve k2(T - T2) "touching" the knee at 250 degrees but still below the cooling curve. This means that above 250 you can have a decay to the knee where the heat is in balance or drops slowly and then below the kneee the

    system again cools down in a way we don not yet know. anyhow there is not much data to go on yet so you can get a lot ov variations of this theme in reality.

  • Kanthal is much better than nichrome, but depending on the type of Kanthal, its resistance can still change by up to 3% from cold to 300C. See this datasheet:


    https://www.kanthal.com/global…d-strip/S-KA026-B-ENG.pdf


    Assuming you use the same type of heater wire for all reactors, you could include the adjustment from these tables and keep all the readings within 1%. Before I had not heard what type of heater wire you were using. In some electronics high temperature tests, I uncovered some errors because the engineers assumed that the cold and hot resistance of nichrome wires was the same, but the delta was actually quite significant.


    Of course we use the same Kanthal A1 wire, from the same bulk reel too. As we mostly use PID temperature control on both control and test reactors, we keep them at the same temperature, so there is no meaningful difference in resistance. Otherwise the control would not be a control. An XSH temperature excursion in a fuelled reactor actually switches out the heating so variations in resistance are not significant since there is no electrical input. I note that the resistance of Kanthal A1 (our chosen wire) actually varies vary little over our chosen working range of 200-500C. So taken together with the fact that we are always looking at data from pretty much isothermal reactors and working at XSH outputs measured in W and not mW this small variation is of little concern. But thank you for raising the issue.

  • As we mostly use PID temperature control on both control and test reactors, we keep them at the same temperature, so there is no meaningful difference in resistance.

    What thermocouples do you use to measure the temperature inside the tube?

    I would assume lab-thermocouples.

    Do they have gas tight ceramic protective fittings to prevent them from „poisoning“?

    Any measurement of the tube outer surface temperature?


    A schematic drawing of your setup would be appreciated - more appreciated than talks about “the end of the fossil fuel/fool age”.

  • The thermocouples ** are shielded t/c's in ceramic thermowells. There is no need to keep them totally gas-tight since there is no free hydrogen inside the reactor - just air. They are bound closely to the surface of the fuel tube in the heart of the reactor, so hard to get closer to the action zone.


    As for your little quip, go look at the photos in this thread, and you will see how it is put together. It might be the end of me spoon-feeding you age. ;)


    ** Mostly K-type, but some 'S' type too.

  • And here are some more. These are of various vintages, almost everything in this picture is more than a month old, so already obsolete. There are 'naked reactors -with geiger pancake detector sitting on top, insulated reactors, pid/psu set-ups, data logging etc. Some may not be new, but they might save somebody hunting. The last picture btw is of the smaller of our two gamma-specs.



  • If I've understood correctly... When switched off BOTH fueled and non-fueled reactors should cool assymtoticly towards room temperature. But the fueled reactor actually cools more slowly or starts cooling after a delay (this being the HOD effect).


    Based on the simplistic assumption of sigmoidal temperature-dependent lenr activation (such as I diagrammed earlier in this thread), the fueled reactor need not decline asymptotically to room temperature. Instead, once activated the lenr heating can be self supporting because locally it is always producing enough heat to keep the reactor at a temperature where the lenr mechanism is fully engaged. This would mean that the temperature would asymptote out at some temperature above room temperature. The resulting temperature behaviour would look something like that in Martin Fleischman's "favorite graph" as shown in one of Jed Rothwell's papers (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf). This is a sort of long-lasting heat after death. It isn't just a slowing of the cooling curve .... it is a cooling that declines towards a brand new equilibrium that includes the effect of steady-state activation of lenr heating.


    This long-lasting type of heat-after-death isn`t the only type that may appear. It only crops up if the lenr mechanism involved is strong enough that at it`s peak it is capable of supplying more heat than cooling. For weak lenr heating, the temperature of the fueled reactor should decline back towards all the way back to room temperature , but not with a simple exponential time course. Stefan`s model operates exclusively in this mode. That is because he posits what I think is an unphysical type of lenr heating which turns on more and more (without end) as the temperature goes up. In Stefan`s model, if the lenr heating is ever greater than cooling the inevitable result is a melting or explosion of the reactor.

  • Good point,


    I think that the cooling dependence as a function on temperature has a knee. For small temperatures convection carries the heat away in a k(T-T1) fashion but at higher temperatures radiation may result and that's T^4 This means that you can draw a

    figure with the heating curve k2(T - T2) "touching" the knee at 250 degrees but still below the cooling curve. This means that above 250 you can have a decay to the knee where the heat is in balance or drops slowly and then below the kneee the

    system again cools down in a way we don not yet know. anyhow there is not much data to go on yet so you can get a lot ov variations of this theme in reality.


    I hadn`t considered radiative cooling (the stefan-botlzman law!). What is your feeling for the relative contributions of convetive and radiative cooling in the Androcles reactor? I get the impression that radiative cooling must be only a small correction to convective cooling and so the knee would not be too visible.